scholarly journals Estimating the oil revenues of Iran premised on the US - Iran relationship analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 451-462
Author(s):  
Mikhail N. Sineok ◽  
Vladimir M. Gribanich
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Global Economy ◽  
Oil And Gas ◽  
The United States ◽  
The West ◽  
Relationship Analysis ◽  
Bilateral Relations ◽  
Short Period ◽  
The Us ◽  
Oil Export

The Islamic Revolution of 1979 has filpped Iran's foreign policy around and country has changed cooperation with the West for confrontation with it. In this regard, over the past 40 years, relations between Iran and the US have had mostly negative dynamics, the country has been permanently under sanctions. During these 40 years, there were periods of exacerbation, in particular in 2006-2013 and after 2018, when the United States imposed serious sanctions against Iran, in particular against the country's oil and gas sector. Thanks to the nuclear deal, bilateral relations entered a short period of relief, that allowed Iran to increase its economic activity. The election of Donald Trump as US President with his aggressive foreign policy, has become the reason for the renewal of sanctions, a reduction in Iranian oil imports and Iran's loss of its positions in the global economy. The 2020 US presidential election has given new impetus to bilateral relations. Trumps opponent Joseph Biden has announced his plans for a softer policy, including relations with Iran. Certain difficulties for Iran in rebuilding the relations and its positions in the world economy arised in view of the presidential elections in the country, due to victory of the conservatives, who do not intend to conduct a constructive dialogue with the West. All these factors are decisive for the future international position of the country, especially in the oil market. As one of the key players in this market, Iran plays an important role in maintaining the balance, especially amid low oil demand caused by the coronavirus pandemic. In this regard, the country's oil export capabilities based on the above factors are analyzed and the most optimal option is esteemed.

scholarly journals From Embargo to Blockade: An Evaluation of the United States Sanctions against Iran in the Context of the Use of Economic Impact Tools in Foreign Poli

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nuri Gökhan Toprak
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
National Security ◽  
Economic Impact ◽  
International Politics ◽  
The United States ◽  
Qualitative Assessment ◽  
Executive Orders ◽  
Bilateral Relations ◽  
The Us

The concept of influence can be defined as a tool of international actors, a form of power, the ability to overcome obstacles in order to achieve different purposes or the desired result in the process of power relations established between actors in international politics. According to the approach that aims to reach the concept of influence as the desired result, in the process of setting up influence states try to influence each other through different methods and tools in which can be used through states’ own capacities. In addition to political and military tools, economic impact tools related to the field of foreign trade and finance are frequently used today. Economic impact tools, such as external aid, which may be positive or rewarding, may also be negative or punitive in a range from the boycott to the blockade. The study aims to provide a qualitative assessment of the United States' (US) economic sanctions against Iran in the context of the use of economic impact tools in international politics. In order to achieve this aim, 12 executive orders issued by the US on the grounds that Iran poses a threat to its national security, foreign policy and economy will be examined. In the conclusion of the study, the assumption that the US sanctions against Iran almost for 40 years has become a multilateral structure such as commercial and financial blockade from a structure related to bilateral relations such as boycott and embargo will be tested.

Trans-Atlantic Relations in Germany's Foreign Policy

2015 ◽  
Vol 59 (11) ◽  
pp. 38-46
Author(s):  
A. Kokeev
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The West ◽  
German Government ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Eu

Relations between Germany, the US and NATO today are the core of transatlantic links. After the Cold War and the reunification of Germany, NATO has lost its former importance to Germany which was not a "frontline state" anymore. The EU acquired a greater importance for German politicians applying both for certain political independence and for establishing of a broad partnership with Russia and China. The task of the European Union Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) development has been regarded by Berlin as a necessary component of the NATO's transformation into a “balanced Euro-American alliance”, and the realization of this project as the most important prerequisite for a more independent foreign policy. Germany’s refusal to support the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 led to the first serious crisis in US Germany relations. At the same time, there was no radical break of the deeply rooted Atlanticism tradition in German policy. It was Angela Merkel as a new head of the German government (2005) who managed to smooth largely disagreements in relations with the United States. Atlanticism remains one of the fundamental foreign policy elements for any German government, mostly because Berlin’s hope for deepening of the European integration and transition to the EU CFSP seems unrealistic in the foreseeable future. However, there is still a fundamental basis of disagreements emerged in the transatlantic relationship (reduction of a military threat weakening Berlin’s dependence from Washington, and the growing influence of Germany in the European Union). According to the federal government's opinion, Germany's contribution to the NATO military component should not be in increasing, but in optimizing of military expenses. However, taking into account the incipient signs of the crisis overcoming in the EU, and still a tough situation around Ukraine, it seems that in the medium-term perspective one should expect further enhancing of Germany’s participation in NATO military activities and, therefore, a growth in its military expenses. In Berlin, there is a wide support for the idea of the European army. However, most experts agree that it can be implemented only when the EU develops the Common Foreign and Defense Policy to a certain extent. The US Germany espionage scandals following one after another since 2013 have seriously undermined the traditional German trust to the United States as a reliable partner. However, under the impact of the Ukrainian conflict, the value of military-political dimension of Germany’s transatlantic relations and its dependence on the US and NATO security guarantees increased. At the same time, Washington expects from Berlin as a recognized European leader a more active policy toward Russia and in respect of some other international issues. In the current international political situation, the desire to expand political influence in the world and achieve a greater autonomy claimed by German leaders seems to Berlin only possible in the context of transatlantic relations strengthening and solidarity within the NATO the only military-political organization of the West which is able to ensure the collective defense for its members against the external threats. However, it is important to take into consideration that not only the value of the United States and NATO for Germany, but also the role of Germany in the North Atlantic Alliance as a “representative of European interests” has increased. The role of Germany as a mediator in establishing the West–Russia relations remains equally important.

scholarly journals The Conflict in Syria from the Perspective of the Russian Federation

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Dominik Karczmarzyk
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Initial Phase ◽  
Peace Process ◽  
The United States ◽  
The West ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Syrian Conflict

Following the outbreak of the conflict in Syria, the United States and Russian Federation became involved in the peace process aimed at stabilizing the internal situation. In the initial phase of this process, Russia introduced political plans to resolve the dispute, while successively blocking UNSC projects calling for the resignation of Bashar al-Assad. As a consequence of the changes that took place in Russia’s foreign policy after the annexation of Crimea, it began conducting military activities aimed at ousting opposition forces from Syria and preventing the West from making any possible intervention. Due to the lack of a decisive response from the United States, within a few years the Syrian regime’s offensive, militarily supported by Russia, reduced the opposition forces supported by the US to the defense. As a result of Russi’s intense involvement in the process of resolving the Syrian conflict, this country has once again started to play a key role in the international arena. The conflict in Syria has highlighted the Russian government’s aspirations to rebuild its state as a superpower.

Constraints and Adjustments in the US–Yemeni Relations

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 307-337
Author(s):  
Jacob Abadi
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Saudi Arabia ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
The United States ◽  
Us Foreign Policy ◽  
Bilateral Relations ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Government ◽  
Democratic Parties

This article analyzes the course of US–Yemeni relations from the 1940s to the present and aims to explain the reasons for the twists and turns in bilateral relations. It argues that the US government never developed a unique “Yemen policy” and that its attitude toward that country was determined largely by its ties with Saudi Arabia. Yemen began to loom large in US foreign policy in the early 1960s when Egyptian President Gamal Abd al-Nasser intervened on behalf of the Republicans who staged a coup against the Royal imamate regime, which relied on Saudi support. The article shows that President John Kennedy looked favorably on the new Republican regime in Yemen despite the robust relations that existed between the United Statesand Saudi Arabia. In addition, it argues that despite the war in Yemen, which lasted from 1962 to 1970 and caused instability in this region, this country did not loom large in US foreign policy. This was largely due to the British presence in south Yemen and especially in the port of Aden, which lasted until 1967. The article shows how the British withdrawal from Aden increased Yemen’s value in the eyes of US policymakers, but even then, no effort was made to fashion a unique policy toward this country. In addition, the article demonstrates how Washington’s attitude changed in 1969 when the country was divided into North Yemen, which tended to regard the Soviet Union as its protector and South Yemen, which continued to rely on US aid. And lastly, the article traces US–Yemeni relations from 1990, when the country reunited, until the present. It demonstrates how the bilateral relations were affected by the superpowers’ rivalry during the Cold War, the fight against terrorism, and disagreement between the Republican and the Democratic parties in the United States.

Israel will keep shooting Palestinian protesters

2018 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Prime Minister ◽  
West Bank ◽  
The United States ◽  
The West ◽  
Security Forces ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Independent Investigation ◽  
The Us

Significance However, the United States has already blocked a Kuwaiti-drafted statement expressing “outrage” at Israeli security forces’ killings of protesters and calling for an independent investigation. The demonstrations by thousands of Gaza Palestinians approaching the Israeli security fence coincided with the formal opening of the new US embassy in Jerusalem. Impacts The turn in international opinion against Israel could bolster Iran and its Lebanese protégé Hezbollah. Events in Gaza make progress in the stalled Egypt-backed ‘reconciliation’ agreement with the West Bank authorities even more unlikely. Few countries will follow the US example of moving their embassies to Jerusalem, despite Israeli inducements. Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s recent foreign policy successes could bolster his position against corruption investigations.

Fuel self-sufficiency will transform US foreign policy

2018 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Energy Demand ◽  
Oil And Gas ◽  
The United States ◽  
Us Foreign Policy ◽  
Net Energy ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Bilateral Relations ◽  
Self Sufficiency ◽  
Islamic Terrorism

Subject US fuel autarky and foreign policy. Significance Energy demand has fashioned US foreign policy since the Second World War but advances in drilling technologies since the 1990s unlocked large reserves of ‘tight’ oil and gas in shale deposits across the country beyond domestic needs. The United States becoming a net energy exporter will significantly alter its role in the world. Impacts US oil output will surge past Russia and Saudi Arabia, increasing US exports to China and giving the US leverage in bilateral relations. Projects underway are set to more than triple US liquefied natural gas (LNG) capacity by the end of 2019, and further projects are likely. Fuel independence will reduce US interest in Middle East stability but could increase US efforts to combat Islamic terrorism. Eastern Europe and Baltic states will invest more in regasification facilities to increase the diversity of their energy supply.

scholarly journals US Policy towards Ukraine under Donald Trump’s Administration: Problematic Issues and Prospects

2020 ◽  
pp. 658-667
Author(s):  
Olha Kravchenko
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
The United States ◽  
Negotiation Process ◽  
Us Foreign Policy ◽  
Strategic Partnership ◽  
Bilateral Relations ◽  
The Us ◽  
Trump Administration

The article describes and analyses the policy of the Trump administration towards Ukraine. Traditionally, the election of a new US President has some impact on the Washington’s position on Ukrainian issues, and the end of the presidential tenure serves as a reason to take stock of the results. Donald Trump’s presidency has not been marked by profound changes in the US foreign policy towards Ukraine, as it was inertially in line, for the most part, with the previous years. The American political establishment primarily views Ukraine through the prism of the security paradigm as a bulwark of deterring its global opponents, particularly Russia. Thus, the article deals with the challenges and prospects of the modern US policy towards Ukraine. The priorities of the US foreign policy towards Ukraine traditionally consist of the issues enshrined in the 2008 U.S.-Ukraine Charter on Strategic Partnership. The article focuses on defence, security, and energy cooperation. In this regard, the United States remains the major guarantor of the territorial integrity and independence of Ukraine. In deterring the Russian aggression, the Trump administration generally follows the approach of the imposition of economic sanctions, launched during the presidency of Barack Obama. It is important to stress that the United States focuses not only on the problem of the armed conflict in Donbas but also on the attempted illegal annexation of Crimea by Russia. At the same time, the focus on security issues has its negative repercussions, as it leads to certain limitations in bilateral relations, as evidenced by the lack of large-scale joint projects and weak trade and economic cooperation that impacts Ukraine’s position in the US foreign policy priorities. In the meantime, regardless of the name of the future US President, Washington’s support for Ukraine will be maintained. The close involvement of the United States in the negotiation process for the settlement of the conflict in Donbas and de-occupation of Crimea would significantly influence the course of events, but it is difficult to predict whether this prospect will become a reality. Keywords: US foreign policy towards Ukraine, Trump administration, strategic partnership, U.S.-Ukraine bilateral relations, process of impeachment.

Against Slave Power? Slavery and Runaway Slaves in Mexico-United States Relations, 1821–1857

2019 ◽  
Vol 35 (2) ◽  
pp. 143-170
Author(s):  
Gerardo Gurza-Lavalle
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
The South ◽  
Runaway Slaves ◽  
The Us ◽  
El Alto ◽  
Upper South ◽  
Lower South

This work analyses the diplomatic conflicts that slavery and the problem of runaway slaves provoked in relations between Mexico and the United States from 1821 to 1857. Slavery became a source of conflict after the colonization of Texas. Later, after the US-Mexico War, slaves ran away into Mexican territory, and therefore slaveholders and politicians in Texas wanted a treaty of extradition that included a stipulation for the return of fugitives. This article contests recent historiography that considers the South (as a region) and southern politicians as strongly influential in the design of foreign policy, putting into question the actual power not only of the South but also of the United States as a whole. The problem of slavery divided the United States and rendered the pursuit of a proslavery foreign policy increasingly difficult. In addition, the South never acted as a unified bloc; there were considerable differences between the upper South and the lower South. These differences are noticeable in the fact that southerners in Congress never sought with enough energy a treaty of extradition with Mexico. The article also argues that Mexico found the necessary leeway to defend its own interests, even with the stark differential of wealth and resources existing between the two countries. El presente trabajo analiza los conflictos diplomáticos entre México y Estados Unidos que fueron provocados por la esclavitud y el problema de los esclavos fugitivos entre 1821 y 1857. La esclavitud se convirtió en fuente de conflicto tras la colonización de Texas. Más tarde, después de la guerra Mexico-Estados Unidos, algunos esclavos se fugaron al territorio mexicano y por lo tanto dueños y políticos solicitaron un tratado de extradición que incluyera una estipulación para el retorno de los fugitivos. Este artículo disputa la idea de la historiografía reciente que considera al Sur (en cuanto región), así como a los políticos sureños, como grandes influencias en el diseño de la política exterior, y pone en tela de juicio el verdadero poder no sólo del Sur sino de Estados Unidos en su conjunto. El problema de la esclavitud dividió a Estados Unidos y dificultó cada vez más el impulso de una política exterior que favoreciera la esclavitud. Además, el Sur jamás operó como unidad: había diferencias marcadas entre el Alto Sur y el Bajo Sur. Estas diferencias se observan en el hecho de que los sureños en el Congreso jamás se esforzaron en buscar con suficiente energía un tratado de extradición con México. El artículo también sostiene que México halló el margen de maniobra necesario para defender sus propios intereses, pese a los fuertes contrastes de riqueza y recursos entre los dos países.

The Central Asian Economies in the Twenty-First Century

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Pomfret
Keyword(s):  
Migrant Workers ◽  
Global Economy ◽  
Oil And Gas ◽  
The United States ◽  
Kyrgyz Republic ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Central Asian ◽  
Asian Economies ◽  
Belt And Road ◽  
External Powers

This book analyzes the Central Asian economies of Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan, from their buffeting by the commodity boom of the early 2000s to its collapse in 2014. The book examines the countries' relations with external powers and the possibilities for development offered by infrastructure projects as well as rail links between China and Europe. The transition of these nations from centrally planned to market-based economic systems was essentially complete by the early 2000s, when the region experienced a massive increase in world prices for energy and mineral exports. This raised incomes in the main oil and gas exporters, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan; brought more benefits to the most populous country, Uzbekistan; and left the poorest countries, the Kyrgyz Republic and Tajikistan, dependent on remittances from migrant workers in oil-rich Russia and Kazakhstan. The book considers the enhanced role of the Central Asian nations in the global economy and their varied ties to China, the European Union, Russia, and the United States. With improved infrastructure and connectivity between China and Europe (reflected in regular rail freight services since 2011 and China's announcement of its Belt and Road Initiative in 2013), relaxation of UN sanctions against Iran in 2016, and the change in Uzbekistan's presidency in late 2016, a window of opportunity appears to have opened for Central Asian countries to achieve more sustainable economic futures.

Still the American Century

1999 ◽  
Vol 25 (5) ◽  
pp. 271-299 ◽  
Author(s):  
BRUCE CUMINGS
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
Possible Worlds ◽  
Federal Budget ◽  
The United States ◽  
Surprising Result ◽  
Policy Issues ◽  
American Century ◽  
The Us ◽  
Year 2000

At the inception of the twenty-first century—not to mention the next millennium—books on ‘the American Century’ proliferate monthly, if not daily. We now have The American Century Dictionary, The American Century Thesaurus, and even The American Century Cookbook; perhaps the American Century baseball cap or cologne is not far behind. With one or two exceptions, the authors celebrate the unipolar pre-eminence and comprehensive economic advantage that the United States now enjoys. Surveys of public opinion show that most people agree: the American wave appears to be surging just as the year 2000 beckons. Unemployment and inflation are both at twenty-year lows, sending economists (who say you can't get lows for both at the same time) back to the drawing board. The stock market roars past the magic 10,000 mark, and the monster federal budget deficit of a decade ago miraculously metamorphoses into a surplus that may soon reach upwards of $1 trillion. Meanwhile President William Jefferson Clinton, not long after a humiliating impeachment, is rated in 1999 as the best of all postwar presidents in conducting foreign policy (a dizzying ascent from eighth place in 1994), according to a nationwide poll by the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations. This surprising result might also, of course, bespeak inattention: when asked to name the two or three most important foreign policy issues facing the US, fully 21 per cent of the public couldn't think of one (they answered ‘don't know’), and a mere seven per cent thought foreign policy issues were important to the nation. But who cares, when all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds?

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document